Absolute truths have been admitted.... (page 3)

Shining One

IC Sec,
>jgnat, did I ever tell you, you are one of my favorite christians ever?
Are you sure of that? "Birds of a feather, flock together". She is obviously not in the Christian camp, she claims to be a Christian yet seems to hold the values of a non-believer. "If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"! BTW, if you had any intellectual integrity you would point out her decided lack of reasoning consistency.
Rex

Shining One

Way to go, Hellrider!
>But you, on the other hand, why are you mocking him in this thread? He offended noone, and furthermore, you are a self-professed christian, are you not? As a christian, you are supposed to believe in the universal ethical standards he (and myself) claims are there. The way I see it, you can dismiss the argument as being a good argument for the existence of God, but you can`t (as a christian) dismiss that there are universal, ethical standards.
You are one rare individual here who actually argues in an intellectual honest way...I pointed out that she claims to be a Christian (and even a Sunday school teacher) yet she consistently argues on the opposite side of belief.
Rex

Shining One

Hi Little Miss Jgnat,
>Fuzzy thinking to me, is as appealing as fuzzy green stuff on my cheese. I can't stomach it.
Then why do you regurgitate it on the rest of us? LOL
Rex

AlmostAtheist

Consider this: If I sell something that everyone wants, I can charge more for it. If suddenly everyone starts selling it, I have to lower my prices. That's called "the law of supply and demand".

Who gave us that law?

If natural "laws" and moral "laws" MUST be from God, do economic "laws" have divine origin, too?

Dave

mkr32208

I would hold that the only "absolute" truth is that might makes right!

That is why as power shifts what is "right" shifts!

gumby

Rex...it's an absolute truth that you are as irritating as hell to about 99.9% of the posters here with your discriminating bullshit towards others.

Gumsolute

LittleToe

jgnat:
Just be aware of the fact that some issues are fuzzy, and so it's difficult to frame them in precise terms.

Unfortunately for minds that prefer black and white answers, that's an absolute truth

DannyBloem

Interesting post Rex,

I have to think a bit deeper into this matter, but as first I want to comment on your assuption that universal moral laws exist...

I do not see why you can conclude that.
1) we are not looking at something universal we are looking only at 1 spiecies, the human spicies. We do not know of the existance of other species so we are unable to assume anything on them, especially their moral standards.

2) an example can be seen with animals, they do not have moral standars (or if you would cout the instincts, the moral standard are varying) why is that, if it is that universal?

3) our personal moral standards are not developed individual. There are developed with input of other individuals, so they are cultural determined. Making it very logical that moral standards of individuals look like each other, giving the impression that a there is a universal moral standard while there is maybe no such thing.

4) Is our mral standard also not developed by phisical realities. Like pain and our will to survive. These things have biological origins, and the projection of these origin to others is not more thenlogical, giving again the impression of a universal morality.

5) when we look at history, we can find very little traces of universal morality. Morality has been cultural influenced and is changing over time.
Even things like murder, have been defined very differntly. In some cultures it was quite normal to sacrifice persons (not enimies, but for example a princess). So if there is an universal morality, where is it?

DB

LittleToe

"If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"!

As opposed to?

If it has a fetish for wool, consumes inordinate amounts of grass, and has green shyte, it must be a...

.

Gumby?

To each their flock, Rex, to each their flock. It might be worth remembering that you're not so unique yourself

jgnat

This will likely fly right over your head, Rex, but even though I agree with your basic premise, I am attacking your foundation because it is flawed. A good debater SHOULD be able to convincingly argue BOTH sides of the fence. The only reason you consider your argument irrefutable is because you have ignored many possibilities. If you were able to take your blinders off and take my advice, I could make you a better apologist.

BTW, if you had any intellectual integrity you would point out her decided lack of reasoning consistency.

By this, I see, you think I should consistently reason in favor of the "Christian camp". But what if our foundation is flawed? Reasoning integrity DEMANDS that we revisit the foundation.

Absolute truths have been admitted....

Share this